RE: [council] RAA Motion

[Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Thanks for the question, Jeff. It's the exact same motion in terms of
the Process A issue (which is the issue we didn't vote on in Cartagena).
The only changes made, as a consequence of the vote on the Registrant
Rights Charter (RRC) that we took in Cartagena, are (1) the second last
and last Whereas clauses, referring to the Cartagena vote on the RRC and
removing the original references where we acknowledged the Final Report;
and (2) removal of all other references to the RRC in the motion. The
actual Process A stuff isn't changed.
 
Hope that helps,
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:"Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/8/2011 8:59 PM
Subject: RE: [council] RAA Motion

Quick Question:  Is this the exact same motion as proposed in Cartagena
or has this been modified?  If it has, can you please send a redline?

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy




The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.
 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:41 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] RAA Motion

 

Fellow Councilors:

 

I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside
from the Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled
in Cartagena:

 

Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team
on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for
Amendments to the RAA
 
Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the
2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a
lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN;
 
Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the
GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large
Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA;
specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and
responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify
additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may
be desirable;
 
Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team
published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and
proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA;
 
Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its
resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of
Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D
of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation
process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and
Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as
specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;
Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other
recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report.
 
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
 
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN Staff adopt the
process specified as Process A in the Final Report, to develop a new
form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics
described in the Final Report. Process A states:
“1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form
of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that
fall under consensus policy.
2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the
Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers
representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.
3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote
to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding
observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re
progress.
4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public
periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group
is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for
public comment and feedback.
5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and
repeat step 4 as necessary.
6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine
when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public
comment.
7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on
approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of
the new form.
8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with
appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.”

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be
initiated by ICANN immediately.

 

Cheers

Mary 

 

 

Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law

Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584